(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood

(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it used Apprentice Carman Theodore Stull and Millman 0. of forces from the B&B House Carpenter subdepartment to construct a building to house the time clock and cards at Springfield, Missouri (System File. A-9372/D-6860).

 (2) B&B Carpenters Thomas Fortner, Jr. and E. 0. McCowan each be allowed forty (40) hours of pay at their respective straight time rates ($4.19858 per hour) because of the aforesaid violation.

 OPINION OF BOARD: The dispute herein arose from the assignment of two
 car Department employes to assemble a small struc
 ture which was to be used to house a time clock and cards at Carrier's
 Springfield, Missouri Shops. Claimants herein were, at the time of
 this incident in February 1972, Bridge and Building Carpenters under
 the Maintenance of Way Agreement.

 The Organization stated, and the Carrier did not deny, that the construction of new buildings as well and the repair and remodeling of existing buildings has tr Rule does not specifically cover the work in question but argues that a prime purpose of the collective bargaining agreement is to preserve the work of the employes subject to the agreement and such work may not be properly assigned to employes of other crafts.

 The prime thrust of Carrier's argument was that the enclosure in question could not be considered ei or building. The enclosure was built in the Mill Shop, assembled and then moved by fork lift to the point of use. The enclosure, according to the Carrier, was portable, studs or rafters. Carrier concluded that the work was not of a type reserved to the Carpenters by either Rule or practice.


The principle issue in di.pute _s whether the assembly 3f the structure in question is work which is reserved to employes covered by the Agreement. Since the admitted by Petitioner, we must examine the past practice. A careful study of the handling of the di evidence whatever adduced by Petitioner with respect to past practice. Further we find that with Car concerning the nature of the structure, the Organization presented arguments but no facts to support its contention of past practice: there are no refutations of the position that the structure was not a "building". The burden of proof with respect to the past practice is on the Petitioner, and in this case no supporting facts whatever have been presented.

 FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving
 the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing there
 on, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

 That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; an
        That the Agreement was not violated.


                  A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST:. ~~ ~ Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of August 1974.